Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

Clark Distilling Co. v. Western Maryland Railway Co.

Supreme Court of the United States · 1917 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawCommerce ClausePolice PowerDue ProcessInterstate Liquor RegulationWebb-Kenyon ActCommerce ClauseFourteenth Amendment

Facts

West Virginia enacted a prohibition law and later amended it to make unmistakable that shipments, receipt, and possession of intoxicating liquor were forbidden even for personal use and whether intrastate or interstate. Relying on that law and the Webb-Kenyon Act, West Virginia had obtained injunctions against carriers transporting liquor into the state contrary to law. Clark Distilling Company, which had systematically solicited purchases and shipped liquor into West Virginia, sought to force the carriers to take a shipment allegedly ordered for personal use. The carriers refused, citing the injunctions and the state law as made effective against interstate shipments by the Webb-Kenyon Act.

Issue

Whether West Virginia could, consistently with the Fourteenth Amendment and the Commerce Clause, prohibit the interstate shipment, receipt, and possession of intoxicating liquor for personal use once Congress enacted the Webb-Kenyon Act. More specifically, whether the Webb-Kenyon Act validly made West Virginia's prohibitions applicable to interstate liquor shipments and whether Congress had power to enact that statute.

Rule

A state may forbid the manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquor and may adopt incidental measures necessary to make that prohibition effective without violating due process. Although such state prohibitions would otherwise burden interstate commerce, Congress may, through the Webb-Kenyon Act, divest interstate liquor shipments of their interstate-commerce immunity when the liquor is intended to be received, possessed, sold, or used in violation of state law; such federal regulation is valid and does not constitute an unconstitutional delegation to the states or lack the required uniformity.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Owen Mercer runs Blue Harbor Spirits in Virginia and sells whiskey to residents of Kentucky by mail. Kentucky has a statute making it unlawful for any person in the state to receive or possess intoxicating liquor delivered by a common carrier, including liquor intended solely for personal consumption, and Congress has enacted a federal statute barring interstate liquor shipments intended to be received, possessed, sold, or used in violation of destination-state law. Mercer tenders a package to Ridge Line Freight for delivery to Laura Benton in Louisville for her own drinking at home.

If Mercer sues to compel Ridge Line Freight to carry the package as protected interstate commerce, how should a court rule?

Explanation. The controlling rule is that Congress may validly divest interstate liquor shipments of interstate-commerce immunity when the liquor is intended to be received, possessed, sold, or used in violation of destination-state law. The majority rejected the argument that the federal statute reaches only shipments intended for a use independently forbidden by state law. If Kentucky forbids receipt and possession of carrier-delivered liquor even for personal use, the interstate shipment loses commerce-clause protection. The state need not separately criminalize drinking itself.